The Effects of Pre-task Planning on the Writing Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners

ISSN 1798-4769 Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 357-365, March 2015 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.16 The Effects of Pre-task Planning on the Writing Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners Reza Biria Department of English, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran Zahra Karimi Department of English, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran Abstract According to Nunan (2004), Task-Based Language Teaching is an approach to the use of tasks as fundamental units of planning and language instruction in language teaching. The present study aimed to investigate the impact of pre-task planning on the fluency of the argumentative essays written by Iranian male and female EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level. For this purpose, an IELTS Writing Task was administered to a population of 100 EFL learners studying at an English institute in Isfahan. Based on their scores, a sample of 50 intermediate level students were selected and randomly divided into two homogenous groups, 25 each. These samples served as control and experimental groups respectively. The role of gender differences was also investigated in this study. Accordingly, the learners in control group were taught by a structure-based traditional approach while the learners in experimental group were taught by a task-based approach. In order to compare the collected data of the two groups, several t tests were utilized. The obtained results of the written essays by the male students revealed that pre-task planning improved fluency. On the other hand, the comparison of the essays written by the females in both group revealed that they produced more fluent texts. Index Terms task, task-based language teaching, argumentative essays, fluency I. INTRODUCTION Communicating with people from other countries with different cultures, attitudes, and social backgrounds through foreign languages has always been of a great concern to human. The dominant method in language teaching was Grammar Translation Method up to the 1940s. The focus of the method was on grammar and translation from L2 to L1 and vice versa. Because the Grammar Translation Method emphasizes reading rather than the ability to communicate in a language there was a reaction to it. Then the changes in communicative needs and the developments in psychology and linguistics led to the rapid emergence of new methods and approaches, with a new look at different aspects of teaching and learning foreign languages. This shift of focus introduced the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to the teaching profession. Developing communicative competence in learners and paying attention to all four skills were the main goals of language teaching in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Richard & Rodgers, 2001; Brown, 2007). In CLT, the primary attention paid to meaning rather than the formal features of language give rise to learning to communicate the intended meaning. Therefore, CLT put a considerable emphasis on fluency and claimed that accuracy can be improved by improving fluency. Based on Brown (2007, p. 241) CLT is best understood as an approach not a method and many other new methods have been derived from it. Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is a logical development of CLT (Richard & Rodgers, 2001; p. 233). Tasks are the basic and fundamental units of planning and instruction in TBLT (Ellis, 2000, 2003; Littlewood, 2004). Many scholars have used task in their curricula and methodologies and they have long been part of the ELT. However, Task-based language teaching (TBLT) offers a totally different rational for the utilization of tasks in language teaching. In addition, TBLT presents some essential criteria for devising, choosing and sequencing tasks in the classroom instruction for the teachers. Here tasks are utilized as the main output units in instruction, practice and even in evaluation. Moreover, task-based instruction has very stronger bedrock in theory and research such as cognitive approach to language teaching and the concept of psychological reality in psycholinguistic theories. Concerning the ability to write in a foreign language, the bulk of research indicates that it is gaining increasing importance. Accordingly, the instruction in writing is assuming a more fundamental role. In the past, writing skill was not considered as an important skill due to ambiguous nature of writing and it was not investigated by the researchers. Thus the dominant approach in teaching writing was the product approach which focuses on the end product of writing and put the emphasis on writing aspects like grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and spelling. According to Badger and White 2000, In product based approaches writing concerned with the structure knowledge of language, and writing development the result of the group s imitation, in the text form provided by the researcher (p. 154).

358 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH A turning point in the teaching of writing was the advent of the process approach. This approach helped to promote the effectiveness of the writing instruction in EFL/ESL contexts. In this approach, the primary attention was given to the processes involved in producing the written text not the final text or the linguistic aspects of the text. Harmer (2001) had defined the process approach as processing any piece of writing through pre-writing phases, editing, redrafting to meet the ultimate goal which is the various skills that should be employed when writing a text. Therefore, pre-writing processes and during writing processes such as writing, rewriting, revising and drafting have received a lot of attention. Process based approach considers writing as a recursive, dynamic, and meaning-centered activity in which the learners are actively engaged in the process of writing. As such, process based approach has been reported to be more effective than the product approach. With regard to the teaching of writing skill, genre approach was another movement which emphasized on the social, cultural and linguistic differences between different texts. The concept of genre is utilized in different educational contexts to refer to the recognizable and recurring patterns of daily, academic and literary texts that occur within a specific culture. Genre approach has certain principles in common with the process approach and has renewed some of the principles of product approach. The later developments in the theory and practice of writing, directed a lot of research towards the writing modes and their rhetorical structures. Stifler (2002) defines rhetorical modes as patterns of organization aimed at achieving a particular effect in the reader. Therefore essays with specific purposes and text organizations are classified as different rhetorical modes, including description, narration, exposition and argumentation. In the early stages of learning to communicate in a fluent and accurate at intermediate and more advance levels writing pedagogical purposes include improving, developing, training and practicing language (Raimes, 1987). In this case, writing see as a complicated process through which writer expresses created thoughts and ideas. Learning to write in a second language is a hard work in compare with L1 writing. In order to become a skillful writer in a foreign language going through timeconsuming and complex process is needed.. Unsurprisingly, role of English writing instruction in foreign language education is considerable in order to become a skillful writer (Weigel, 2002). It seems that composing a paragraph accurately and fluently is by no means an easy task. As relevant studies indicate the ability to write cannot be separated from language learning and without language learning an effective acquisition cannot be gained, writing has been attracting attention in language teaching and learning. In fact, writing is a hard laden task not only for native speakers but also for non-native speakers (Biria & Jafari, 2013). Iranian EFL learners are no exception in this matter. Over the last decades interest in writing as one of the most important communicative skills in English language teaching has gained momentum (for more information, see Hayes & Flower, 1986). Evidently, a piece of writing conveys the writer thoughts encoded in the form of the composition as a bridge between the reader and the writer. Mao (2002) has introduced the term Games rules as an effective way for writer to organize the whole composition in to a coherent structure with regard to a particular topic. These rules are used for the reader to decode writing correctly. Although writing is generally taught as a product-based approach, this study uses task-based approach to teaching writing. Studies provide strong support to the noticeable impact of planning on language production where fluency and complexity are scrutinized. Studies by Crookes (1989), Foster and Skehan (1996), as well as Wendel (1997), among others, report that pre-task planning affects fluency positively. On this basis, the present study aimed at collecting a sample of Iranian EFL learners writing at an intermediate level to ascertain the effects of pre-task planning on their written performance and measuring the pedagogical utility of pretask planning on fluency. The basic assumption behind the research was to find out whether pre-task planning influences writing fluency. The current study also measured the extent to which pre-task planning can affect fluency in argumentative essays written by Iranian male and female EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level. II. LITERATURE REVIEW Richards and Rodgers (2001) believe that task-based language teaching is an approach based on the utilization of tasks as the fundamental units of planning which have a significant part in language teaching. According to Willis (2001), language learners can communicate in the foreign language that they are learning as a result of task-based language teaching (TBLT). Willis (2004) points out that task-based instruction (TBI) are considered as a meaning focused approach that shows the use of language in real world to achieve its primary purpose. In TBLT, all of the four language skills are considered as significant. Task-based language teaching is supported by an increasingly larger number of SLA studies and theories. Nunan (2004, p. 76) states that... it [task-based language teaching] is supported by a rich and growing research agenda. This view towards task-based language teaching makes it different from other methods of language teaching. Moreover, Richards and Rodgers (2001) consider tasks as research tools in SLA. Ellis (2003) adds that, in SLA studies, language use samples can be elicited through tasks. In other words, the process of second language acquisition is identified through tasks. Thus, SLA studies provide a scientific basis for task-based language teaching. Some of the main underlying theories and hypothesis including input hypothesis, interaction hypothesis, and output hypothesis also support the task-based language teaching. Clearly, the Bangalore Project is the early application of task-based approach within a communicative framework for language teaching. It ran from 1979 to 1984 and was based on the percept that language form can be learnt in the classroom entirely through a focus on meaning, and that grammar construction by the learner is an unconscious

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 359 process. (Menhert, 1998, p. 321). According to Prabhu (1987), this project was the result of dissatisfaction with the structural approach to English language teaching. Along with a series of problem-solving activities evolved through a sustained period of trial and error, this project encourage the language students to learn English through meaningful communication. Malaysian Communicational Syllabus as another application of task-based approach refers to by Richards and Rodgers (2001) in 1975. Besides Nunan (2004) introduces the Australian Language Level (ALL) project which utilized Holliday s macro skills as the point of departure for curriculum development. He mentions that ALL is one early version of a task-based curriculum (p. 42). The Bangalore Project which is also called Communicational Teaching Project (CTP), was conducted in eight schools and can be seen as an effort towards task-based teaching (Menhert, 1999). Actually, Howatt (1984) believes that whatever happens Bangalore Project has set the context for one of the most interesting arguments of the eighties, if not beyond (p. 288). With regard to the evaluation of the Bangalore Project, Bretta and Davies (1985) believe that Prabhu's learners were more successful, compared to their counterparts who were taught traditionally. Malaysian Communicational Syllabus as another application of task-based approach refers to by Richards and Rodgers (2001) in 1975. Besides, Nunan (2004) introduces the Australian Language Level (ALL) project which utilized Holliday s macro skills as the point of departure for curriculum development. He mentions that ALL is one early version of a task-based curriculum (p. 42). III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In spite of the crucial role of writing in language learning, it has long been ignored. Teaching writing seems to be too difficult and time-consuming in comparison with the other language skills, so insufficient attention has been drawn to teach and practice writing in the class (Zeng, 2005). It is clear that student s wealth of knowledge is needed to flow ideas so as to compose a concise writing. Certain practices exist in public and private schools and English institutes in writing English. Although these practices are not successful due to time limitation, students English proficiency, and low motivation. IV. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of Task-based language teaching, more specifically pre-task planning and its efficacy on the writing performance of Iranian EFL learners at an intermediate proficiency level. The prime target is the students writing creation in the case of fluency. For this purpose, the present study attempts to touch upon the following research questions. 1. To what extent does pre-task planning influence fluency of argumentative essays writing by Iranian male EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level? 2. To what extent does pre-task planning influence fluency of argumentative essays writing by Iranian female EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level? Based on these research questions, the following null hypotheses were designed: H01: There is no positive evidence for the influence of pre-task planning on fluency of argumentative essays writing by Iranian male EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level. H02: There is no positive evidence for the influence of pre-task planning on fluency of argumentative essays writing by Iranian female EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level. V. METHOD A. Participants The present study was conducted in one of the English language institutes, Isfshan city, Iran. The participants were chosen from among Iranian EFL learners based on a pretest. An IELTS Writing Task was administered to choose 50 out of 100 participants with the proficiency of intermediate level. The story behind choosing intermediate level students rather than the students of the other levels was that at elementary level students are required to compose essays of 250 words and it is claimed that elementary students with low level of L2 proficiency are not able to write a composition with considerable difference. On the other hand, advanced students are so developed that may invalidate the effect of pre-task planning on fluency of argumentative essays writing. The selected sample included 20 males and 30 females. They were all native speakers of Persian who learned English as a foreign language in an English institute. This study was carried out in summer 2013 and conducted with Iranian female and male English learners who ranged in age from 19 to 23. The participant average age was 21. The selected sample assigned as either control or experimental group. From the 50 intermediate learners selected as the result of IELTS Writing Task, 25 learners were randomly assigned to the control group (11 males and 14 females) and another 25 served as the experimental group (9 males and 16 females). B. Design An IELTS Writing Task was administered to measure the students' writing ability in order to achieve maximum possible homogeneity among the subjects regarding their general English proficiency. The selected sample was

360 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH assigned as either control or experimental group randomly. The participants developed an argumentative essay through the pre-task phase.in this phase they were asked to compose argumentative essay in 25 minutes. C. Materials This study enlisted two kinds of materials. First, an IELTS Writing task was administered to choose 50 EFL learners at an intermediate level of proficiency. The participants were selected based on scores which they got on the IELTS Writing task, that is, those subjects who scored 3/5-5 were chosen as the participants of the study. Second, an argumentative essay writing task whose topic selected from IELTS and was a topic of general interest was given to the students. Afterwards, 30 written texts, 15 of which produced by students in the control group and 15 by students in the experimental group, were manually typed in to a computer. The AntConc 3.2.1 w software was employed to count the number of words. D. Procedures In the present study, planning was operationalized at two levels (a) no planning (NP) for the control group, (b) pretask planning (PTP) for the experimental group. In the no planning condition, the participants performed the task under normal classroom settings. The control group consisted of 25 learners who were asked to write an essay in 40 minutes. The essay writing was traditionally, a structure based approach, taught to the participants in this group. In the pre-task planning condition, the topic was introduced and the instructor encouraged the students to activate the related schemata and the background knowledge. Like the no planning they were required to finish the task in 40 minutes preparing an essay consisting of at least 250 words. Afterwards, the written texts were analyzed in terms of fluency. VI. RESULTS A. Null Hypothesis/H01 H01: There is no positive evidence for the influence of pre-task planning on fluency of argumentative essays writing by Iranian male EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level. Fluency of essays written by the males in the control group was compared with fluency of essays produced by the participants in the experimental group through measuring the average number of per text. The following tables show the results of the comparison for, and the fluency. Table I incorporates the descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, and standard error of the means regarding the essays written by male participants in the control and experimental groups. Table I depicts, among other things, the mean scores, and standard deviations of writing fluency of male participants in the control and experimental groups. The mean score of male control group (MCG) is 17.36 while that of male experimental group (MEG) equals 20.88. To see if the difference between the mean scores is statistically large or not, the t test table should be examined. TABLE I. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS COMPARING WRITING FLUENCY OF MALES IN THE CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean FLUENCY MCG MEG 11 9 17.3636 20.8889 3.66804 2.20479 1.10596.73493 TABLE II. INDEPENDENT-SAMPLES T TEST RESULTS COMPARING WRITING FLUENCY OF MALE PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Levene s Test t test for Equality of Means for Equality of Fluency Equal Assumed Equal not Assumed F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Difference Std. Errors Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference tailed) Lower Upper 1.622.219-2.527 18.021-3.52525 1.39518-6.45641 -.59410-2.655 16.709.017-3.52525 1.32788-6.33056 -.71995 The two means obtained from two independent groups were compared and an independent Samples t- test was used for analyzing the data. Table II, by contrast, shows the results of the Independent Samples t test according to the means of per text for male essays in the control and experimental groups. For, the level of significance was 0.21 (bolded in Table II, under [Sig/2-tailed] column); the difference between the two groups was significant. In fact, there was a significant difference between male essays regarding the average number of in both control and experimental groups. Since the value under Sig. (2-tailed) is.02, it is obvious that p is less than our specified level of significance (i.e.,.02 >.05), indicating a statistically significant difference between male participants in the two groups. Writing fluency of males, as a result, was indeed affected by the pre-task treatment utilized in this study.

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 361 To have a better understanding of the differences between the means for the male participants in the control and experimental group, the following bar graph was used: (Figure 1) Figure1. Graphical representation of the writing fluency mean of the male Fig. 1 displays that there was a noticeable difference in the average number of per text for control and experimental groups. In comparison with male participants in the control group, participants wrote more fluent writings in the experimental one. According to the results of the study, there was significant difference between the mean of fluency in argumentative essays written by the males in the control and experimental groups; therefore, null hypothesis was rejected in this regard. B. Null Hypothesis/H02 H02: There is no positive evidence for the influence of pre-task planning on fluency of argumentative essays writing by Iranian female EFL learners with an intermediate proficiency level. To this point, the fluency of the scripts produced by females in the control and experimental groups has been scrutinized separately. At this stage, the difference in percentage should be investigated. In a different way, the second research question was posed to scrutinize the impact of pre-task planning on the degree of development in fluency of the writing task. To this aim, the female written essays in the control group have been compared with the female written essays in the experimental one in terms of mean for each measure. The following tables seek to illustrate in the following tables. Each table is followed by some figures which show the improvement degree in bar graph. It should be remind that the results will be presented within two tables first of which referring to the results of descriptive statistics pertinent to the comparison of female participants fluency scores in the control and experimental groups, and the second one to the results of the comparison for, and the fluency. In Table III, the essays written by the females in the control and experimental groups are compared regarding the average number of per text. As can be seen, the means for the second sub-measure of fluency that is average number of per text in the experimental group produced by the females were higher than those in the control group. TABLE III. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS COMPARING WRITING FLUENCY OF FEMALE PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONTROL & EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean FLUENCY FCG FEG 14 16 18.0000 21.0625 3.63741 2.95452.97214.73863 Table 11 displays, among other things, the mean scores, and standard deviations of writing fluency of female participants in the control and experimental groups. The mean score of female control group (FCG) is 18.00 while that of female experimental group (FEG) equals 21.06. To see if the difference between the mean scores is statistically large or not, the t test table should be considered.

362 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH TABLE IV. INDEPENDENT-SAMPLES T TEST RESULTS COMPARING WRITING FLUENCY OF FEMALE PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Levene s t test for Equality of Means Test for Equality of FLUENCY Equal Assumed Equal not Assumed F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Difference Std. Errors 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference tailed) Difference Lower Upper.381.542-2.544 28.017-3.06250 1.20374-5.52826 -.59674-2.508 25.094.019-3.06250 1.22091-5.57654 -.54846 In as much as the value under Sig. (2-tailed) is.017, it could be construed that a statistically meaningful difference exists between female participants in the two groups. Writing fluency of females, hence, was improved by the pre-task treatment utilized in this study. Using the following bar graph can help much to have a better picture of what has happened. Figure 2. Graphical representation of the writing fluency mean of the female According to Figure 2, the mean for the argumentative essays written by females in the experimental group was higher than those in the control group. However in both groups considerable progress was achieved, the participants in the experimental group overcome the control group in using clauses. This difference in percentage was noticeable. Consequently, the pre-task treatment used in this study turned out to affect writing fluency of the female participants. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Referring to the first question of this study about the influence of pre-task planning on fluency of argumentative essays written by male EFL learners. Table I and II show that there is significant difference between the fluency of male essays in the control and experimental group. (It is here worthy to mention that for the null hypothesis to be rejected, the observed value of p must be smaller than the significance level of.05 [p <.05]. If the observed p-value is equal or greater than the significance level of.05, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected (Biria & Jafari, 2013)). Since the p-value for fluency of the texts written by the male in the experimental group is 0.21 and it is smaller than.05, the null hypothesis is rejected in this regard. This is supported by the study of Rahimpour (2011) in an assessment context according to which pre-task planning had effect on fluency. Therefore, the pre-task treatment leads to affect writing fluency of the male participants. Table I and II reveals the results of sub-measures of fluency (the average number of T- units per text) and fluency itself respectively for the essays written by the male in the control and experimental group. Generally speaking, the pre-task treatment used in this study helped learners to produce writings which are more fluent. As it can be conveyed in figure 1, the male participants in the experimental group developed a growth in number of T- units per text. To consider second question of the study regarding the influence of pre-task planning on fluency of argumentative essay writing by female EFL learners at intermediate level, table III, and table IV demonstrate that there is significant difference between essays created by the participants in the control and experimental groups. In accordance with the finding results, pre-task planning enhances writing fluency of females. Therefore, it has affected the fluency of the texts and caused female to produce scripts which are more fluent. As it can be conveyed in Figure 2, experimental group developed a growth in number of per text.

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 363 The effectiveness of the task-based instruction on teaching is supported by the study of Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) according to which writing tasks within a task-based framework lead to the production of more fluent texts. In short, this study was conducted to scrutinize the efficacy of pre-task planning on the fluency of composition composed by Iranian intermediate learners. The outcomes of the study are an opportunity to express the rising progress in the use of by the experimental groups. APPENDIX A. NUMBER OF OCCURRENCE FOR EACH MEASURE IN CONTROL GROUP Male Participants Words Dependent 1 289 23 29 6 9 14 2 285 21 28 7 8 14 3 284 21 27 6 7 15 4 278 18 25 5 6 12 5 273 17 25 8 6 13 6 265 19 26 3 7 14 7 254 17 25 5 7 13 8 248 16 24 4 6 12 9 237 16 23 3 5 11 10 220 12 20 2 3 9 11 215 11 19 3 3 9 Female Participants Words Dependent 1 295 23 28 5 10 15 2 287 23 29 7 8 15 3 286 22 30 8 9 15 4 283 21 30 9 10 16 5 281 19 27 8 8 15 6 270 19 28 7 9 16 7 269 19 27 8 9 16 8 261 18 26 7 7 14 9 255 18 24 2 5 12 10 245 15 23 4 4 10 11 235 14 24 9 5 11 12 231 16 21 5 6 10 13 224 14 22 3 5 11 14 219 11 20 1 2 8 APPENDIX B. NUMBER OF OCCURRENCE FOR EACH MEASURE IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Male Participants words Dependent 1 334 25 35 10 14 30 2 329 23 33 10 13 24 3 325 22 32 10 10 16 4 316 21 33 12 14 19 5 313 21 29 8 12 18 6 288 20 31 11 9 16 7 278 19 33 14 9 24 8 265 19 28 9 7 15 9 247 18 24 6 5 11

364 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH Female Participants Words Dependent 1 332 27 42 15 18 38 2 329 26 43 17 17 39 3 324 24 43 19 15 33 4 312 23 40 17 15 28 5 309 23 40 17 14 31 6 299 22 41 19 11 31 7 280 22 37 15 14 25 8 283 20 33 13 10 20 9 276 19 29 10 7 19 10 265 19 32 13 12 16 11 261 20 35 15 12 19 12 258 20 34 14 13 18 13 252 19 35 10 11 17 14 249 19 34 15 10 16 15 245 17 34 17 9 15 16 241 17 26 9 9 13 APPENDIX C. QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF FLUENCY OF THE CONTROL GROUP Words Participants N Mean Male 11 258.90 Female 14 260.07 Male 11 17.36 Female 14 18 Male 11 24.63 Female 14 25.64 APPENDIX D. QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF FLUENCY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Participants N Mean Words Male 9 299.44 Female 16 282.18 Male 9 20.88 Female 16 21.06 Male 9 30.88 Female 16 36.12 REFERENCES [1] Badger, R., and White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing, ELT Journal, 54 (4), pp. 153-160. [2] Biria & Jafari, 2013. The impact of collaborative writing on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners Journal of Language Teaching and Research, doi:10.4304/jltr.4.1.164-175. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 164-175. [3] Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Ed.), New York: Pearson Education. [4] Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variability. Studied in Second Language Acquisition, 11,367-388. [5] Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy, Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), pp. 193-220. [6] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [7] Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task- based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 233-292. [8] Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd Ed.), Edinburgh: Pearson Education. [9] Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American psychologist, 41(10), 1106-1113. [10] Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11] Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions, ELT Journal, 58 (4), pp. 319-327. [12] Mao, C. H. (2002). An analysis of the problems of coherence in Chinese students' English writings. Unpublished master thesis, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai. [13] Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52-83. doi:10.1017/s0272263198001041, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263198001041. [14] Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching: A Comprehensively Revised Edition of Designing Tasks for Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [15] Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [16] Rahimpour, M. (2011). The effects of on-line and pre-task planning on descriptive writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, doi:10.5539/ijel.v1 n 2, p274.

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 365 [17] Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [18] Ramies, A. (1987). Why write? From purpose to pedagogy. English Teaching Forum. 25(4), 36-41. [19] Stifler, B. (2002). Rhetorical modes. Retrieved January 1st, 2008, from http://users.cdc.net/~stifler/en110/modes.html. [20] Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks and the effects of Collaboration. In M. Pillar (Ed,), Investigating tasks in formal language settings (pp. 157-177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [21] Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [22] Wendel, J. N. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Temple University. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [23] Willis, D., and Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning, in R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173-179. [24] Zeng, D. (2005). The process oriented approach to ESL/EFL writing instruction and research. Teaching English in China, 28(5), 66-77. Reza Biria, born in Isfahan, Iran, obtained his Ph.D. in teaching English as a Foreign Language from the University of Isfahan in 2001. He is an applied linguistics assistant professor working at Khorasgan Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. Dr. Biria has published papers in national and international conferences. His research interests include teaching English as a second and foreign language and ESP. Zahra Karimi, born in Isfahan, Iran, received her B.A in English Language Translation at University of Allameh Tabatabaee, Tehran, Iran in 2007. She has got her MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language from Islamic Azad University of Khorasgan, Isfahan, Iran. She has been teaching English since 2005. Her main research interests lie in writing and reading strategies in language teaching.